O.C. Can Trust Election Process --but Not Without Changes

The 1996 elections raised many questions. Were noncitizens registered to vote in Orange County? Was there massive voter fraud in the 46th Congressional District? Did Hermandad Mexicana Nacional violate state and federal election laws in their voter registration activities? Were other organizations purposefully violating election laws?

In the past year, I have been asked those questions repeatedly, by voters throughout California. But the most important question is: Can we provide the voters of Orange County and the state with answers?

Based on our investigation, my answer is a resounding yes.

While I believe that California’s election system is fundamentally sound, I also believe it’s been the victim of 20 years of neglect. An honor system is now ripe for abuse by people who are less than honorable.

The solution is to install a number of common-sense reforms that allow us to retain the ease and accessibility of our honor system, yet with safeguards that will ensure that voting laws are not violated--whether intentionally or unintentionally.

California currently has more than 14 million people registered to vote. Of that an estimated 10% to 29% is what we call “deadwood”--the duplicate names, erroneous or obsolete address information and names of nonexistent and ineligible persons still listed on the active voter file.

Deadwood directly skews or undercuts voter turnout by providing an unrealistic universe of voters and creating an increased potential for fraud.

It’s no mystery why California had the highest number of voters registered and the lowest turnout ever in 1996. Our elections professionals all agree that in order to ensure the integrity of our elections we must have clean voter rolls--and the necessary procedures to allow us to get them and keep them that way.

A bill that I strongly sponsored was approved by the Legislature in 1996. It allows county elections officials to conduct a residency confirmation mailing. Officials contact voters who have not voted in more than four years. If they do not respond to the notice, they move them to an inactive file. While the voter will not receive voting materials by mail, he or she can still vote at the polls if they show identification.

To illustrate its effect, in the short time this law has been available, eight counties have been able to move approximately 500,000 names off their active voter rolls--saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in mailing costs and reducing the potential fraud.

Unfortunately, this extremely successful program is now under legal assault from the Clinton Administration. If the Justice Department has its way, we may be forced to place more than a half-million recently removed bad names back onto our voter rolls. Rather than being challenged in court, this reform needs to be encouraged in every state and mandated in every California county.

One of the most serious problems is our inability under federal law to utilize the Social Security number, or even a portion of it, to differentiate between voters with similar names when comparing the voter rolls to other databases. Although several other states use the Social Security number for election purposes, more than 20 years ago California gave away its ability to use it on voter registration cards.

Once we achieve federal reforms to repair the antiquated system of maintaining our voter rolls, we must reform how we vote. In today’s mobile society, poll workers no longer know everyone who lives in their precinct. We show identification to cash a check or get on an airplane. It’s time we show identification at the polling place to help protect and improve the security of the election process.

We will continue to pursue the reforms needed to eliminate the problems associated with the use of “bounty hunters,” individuals paid to obtain vote registrations or gather initiative petition signatures, including licensing requirements and increased penalties for fraud and abuse.

Other reforms we are aggressively pursuing include: establishing a mandatory citizenship check-off box on the voter registration form; prohibiting gifts for voting and any lottery used as an incentive for or based on registration or voting; enacting additional felony provisions for fraudulent registration; and limiting where an absentee ballot may be delivered on Election Day and who can deliver it.

As secretary of state, I have maintained two independent goals: attain 100% participation by all eligible citizens with zero tolerance for fraud. As we approach the 1998 elections, these common sense reforms will move us closer to both achieving these goals and ensuring the integrity of California’s election system. The voters of California deserve nothing less.